web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu

Hoo boy: Colorado poll has Cory Gardner trailing by double digits in Senate race

Westlake Legal Group cg Hoo boy: Colorado poll has Cory Gardner trailing by double digits in Senate race The Blog Senate poll peters Michigan John Hickenlooper james Cory Gardner Colorado

The hopeful caveat comes right up front: This is a Democratic poll and there’s fully a year to go before Coloradans vote.

But the caveat comes with its own caveat. An independent poll of the state conducted by Emerson in August found Gardner trailing John Hickenlooper by a similar margin. Emerson had it 53/40. Today’s Democratic poll has it 53/42. Normally it’d be implausible for any incumbent senator to trail by double digits in a swing state, but … Colorado’s not much of a swing state anymore. It’s blue enough that Hillary managed to win it in 2016 when virtually every other battleground across the country was tilting towards Trump. And Gardner’s not facing some rando next fall. Hickenlooper is a twice-elected governor (and before that a twice-elected mayor of Denver), probably better known to most voters there than Gardner himself is. It’s certainly possible that this really is a 10-point race right now.

To think: If Hickenlooper’s presidential run had gotten a tiny bit more traction, he might have been forced to stick around in the Dem primaries long enough that his window to run for Senate back home would have closed. His total failure at the national level seems likely to produce a Senate pick-up for Democrats next fall.

The poll shows that President Trump is at his lowest popularity point since he took office. Thirty-eight percent of people polled said they viewed him favorably, compared to 60% who view him unfavorably. His favorability has only been that low once in KOM polling, in March 2018; and his unfavorability was last that high in January. KOM also conducted a similar poll in June…

Thirty-four percent of people polled in the latest KOM survey said they viewed Gardner favorably, compared to 45% who view him unfavorably. His favorability was lowest, and his unfavorability highest, at any point that KOM has polled that question over the past 2 ½ years…

Fifty-four percent of respondents said they support the impeachment inquiry into President Trump, compared to 43% who oppose it. And 48% of respondents said they believe Trump should be impeached and removed from office, compared to 44% who said he should not be.

Some have noted that Hickenlooper’s 53/42 margin over Gardner closely matches support for the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry, which runs 54/43. Trump may be killing Gardner here. And if it’s true that Trump’s own approval rating in Colorado stands at 38/60, he might not even contest the state next fall, calculating that his resources are better spent trying to flip Minnesota.

All of this puts Gardner in a terrible bind on impeachment. More so than most of his Republican colleagues, he’s damned if he votes to remove and damned if he doesn’t. The poll notes that his approval is barely above water even among his own party, which means he’ll basically be required to vote to acquit Trump to shore up their support. The last thing he can afford to do now is piss off his own base when he’s fighting uphill against Hickenlooper, after all. But given the depth of Colorado’s dislike for Trump, siding with the president is destined to cement some of the opposition to Gardner. Unaffiliated voters already favor Hickenlooper by 25 points (58/33) and 61 percent(!) of them support impeachment, which means there’s no option for Gardner on impeachment and removal that probably won’t cost him more votes than it’ll earn him.

If these Democratic numbers remotely reflect actual reality, Gardner might be sunk next fall. It’s not like the economy’s going to get dramatically better between now and then to rescue him given how well it’s done already during Trump’s term. And in light of the past week or two, it’s highly unlikely that Trump will say or do anything in the coming year that’ll rehabilitate him with Coloradans.

The only silver lining here: Doug Jones is facing the same “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” dilemma in Alabama. Vote to acquit Trump and his own party will be outraged, vote to remove and the majority of the electorate will revolt. At worst, the loss of Gardner’s seat to the GOP will be offset by the gain of Jones’s seat. The difference between the two senators is that Jones surely knows his time in the Senate is over and will probably vote on removal and everything else over the next 12 months the way he wants, without worrying about the political implications. Gardner’s doom isn’t quite as assured so he may still be susceptible to partisan pressure. For Trump’s sake, he should hope Gardner gets a good poll or two between now and the removal vote to convince him to stick with the team. If he falls further behind Hickenlooper, Gardner may say “to hell with it” and start voting the way he wants too.

It’s not all doom and gloom for Republicans in the Senate, though. I’ll leave you on a sunny note with this poll from Michigan, which has challenger John James neck and neck with Democratic incumbent Gary Peters, trailing 43/40. James outperformed expectations last year in falling short against Debbie Stabenow. With Trump at the top of the ticket in a state that went red in 2016, he has a shot at a pick-up. Which is good because, with Susan Collins in the same boat as Gardner on impeachment and removal, we shouldn’t count on Maine’s Senate seat staying red next year either.

The post Hoo boy: Colorado poll has Cory Gardner trailing by double digits in Senate race appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group cg-300x153 Hoo boy: Colorado poll has Cory Gardner trailing by double digits in Senate race The Blog Senate poll peters Michigan John Hickenlooper james Cory Gardner Colorado   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Will The Supreme Court Get Involved in an Electoral College Issue From 2016?

Westlake Legal Group electoral-college-300x221 Will The Supreme Court Get Involved in an Electoral College Issue From 2016? washington state washington D.C. Supreme Court SCOTUS Politics News Morning Briefing Impeachment of President Trump impeachment Government Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post faithless electors elections donald trump democrats Constitution Conservatives Congress Colorado Campaigns Bill Clinton Allow Media Exception Academia 2019

The year 2016 was a doozy of an election on the national level. Donald Trump surprised a lot of people ( including myself) when he won the Presidency and made Hillary a two-time loser in POTUS runs. The reason why Trump was able to pull off this feat was because of two simple words.

Electoral College.

I have written here at Red State before about this…READ  Yuck: Colorado Decides To Bypass The Electoral College With National Popular Vote and the reason why it needs to be preserved.

Now a new challenge is possibly facing a showdown in the United States Supreme Court and it could radically alter how we have done elections in this country for over 240 years.

According to…CNN

Three presidential electors in Washington state who voted for Colin Powell in 2016 rather than Hillary Clinton and were fined under state law, are asking the US Supreme Court to take up their appeal and decide whether a state can bind an elector to vote for the state’s popular vote winner.

“The original text of the Constitution,” their lawyers argued in court papers filed Monday afternoon, “secures to electors the freedom to vote as they choose.”

If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the appeal of the so-called “faithless electors,” it could thrust the justices into yet another high-passion political fight in the heat of the 2020 presidential election. It comes as some predict that the volatile political atmosphere and disputes over redistricting could further emphasize the role of the Electoral College in the upcoming election.

The states have always run federal elections. However, with this new wrinkle, the states would pick people who then do not have to abide by the state’s very own rules if the faithless electors are ruled constitutional on a federal level.

The 10th amendment to the United States Consitution declares that…

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Even though people have argued that the 12th amendment was passed to deal with some complications in the process of federal elections it does not specifically say how states were to deal with the rules for selecting electors. That, at least in my mind would mean that the states get to pick the process.

However, can you imagine a scenario where 10 or 12 states have a different processes to pick and allow electors to do what they want? That would be an epic mess.

I am fascinated about this whole process and will keep an eye on what SCOTUS decides to do. I don’t think they have much choice to take it up and we will see soon enough.

Check out my other posts here on Red State and my podcast Bourbon On The Rocks plus like Bourbon On The Rocks on Facebook and follow me on the twitters at IRISHDUKE2 

The post Will The Supreme Court Get Involved in an Electoral College Issue From 2016? appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group electoral-college-300x221 Will The Supreme Court Get Involved in an Electoral College Issue From 2016? washington state washington D.C. Supreme Court SCOTUS Politics News Morning Briefing Impeachment of President Trump impeachment Government Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post faithless electors elections donald trump democrats Constitution Conservatives Congress Colorado Campaigns Bill Clinton Allow Media Exception Academia 2019   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Joe Cunningham: A False Narrative Is Stoking Fears Over The New Joker Movie

Westlake Legal Group Joker-620x349 Joe Cunningham: A False Narrative Is Stoking Fears Over The New Joker Movie Narrative movie mental illness Media mass shooting Joker Guns Front Page Stories Featured Story Culture Colorado Aurora Allow Media Exception

It is very difficult for me to trust Warner Bros. to do any justice to a DC live-action movie ever since they started trying to churn out their own “cinematic universe” to rival Marvel’s. However, being a standalone film and not tied to any of those abominations, there is a lot of positive feedback for Joker, starring Joaquin Phoenix.

The problem is that the last time the Joker had a major, perception-altering role in cinema, there was a shooting that was attributed to a worship of the character.

Many police forces are announcing they’ll be providing security at theaters to prevent another “Aurora-style” mass shooting. Other critics are pointing out the idol-worship that comes with making the villain the hero of his movie. Many people are just outraged that we would dare portray a mentally-ill person like this.

However, much of this fear and hatred is based off Aurora, Colorado, where a lunatic took a gun and shot multiple people at the premiere of The Dark Knight, where Heath Leger’s portrayal of Joker was widely acclaimed. There were reports that the movie – and Leger’s Joker in particular – were motivating factors for the shooting.

Those reports, though, were bogus.

The Washington Post’s story with the photo gallery said this: “Holmes, who told police he was ‘the Joker’ … .”

The article linked to a 2012 ABC News report with a statement by New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, saying Holmes had called himself the Joker.

Kelly’s comment to the press appears to be the origin of this myth. Why the NYPD police commissioner would be in a position to know anything about police activity in Aurora is beyond me.

Indeed, why would New York’s police commissioner know or even comment on that?

“It is not true,” said George Brauchler, the 18th Judicial District attorney, who prosecuted the case.

“It is ridiculous,” he said. “Completely unfounded. Some of this stuff. … It gets repeated by so many sources by people doing their research that it just becomes real.”

Investigators heard no witness talking about the Joker, he said. And no police officer claimed Holmes called himself the Joker.

People point to the shooter’s red hair as a sign of the idol worship – except the Joker’s hair is green and when asked by investigators, the shooter himself said it was because red suggests bravery.

But nonetheless, there is a panic among people who think that the Aurora shooting coupled with the political and social environment we live in will undoubtedly lead to another major event. It’s impossible to say one way or another whether that’s the case, but as is so often the case, the issue has way more to do with mental health than it does the move of the night.

If someone were to do try for a repeat, they will be doing so because of the myth that was constructed here, not because of the worship of the Joker. The Joker is a compelling character, no matter what interpretation you are viewing, but he’s not someone who gets “worshipped.” However, the myth of James Holmes, the Aurora shooter, and the reduced inhibitions of someone who is mentally ill and seeking to be remembered for something like he is are far more likely to bring trouble.

Had the myth of Holmes as “The Joker” not been spun into existence by people who were ignorant of the case, then that risk would be greatly diminished. Instead, we get people who, once again, like to find ways to blame something else other than mental illness as the reason people do horrific things.

 


Joe Cunningham is a Senior Editor at RedState. You can find more of his writings here and his commentary on Louisiana issues at The Hayride. You can also follow him on Twitter at @JoePCunningham and Like his page on Facebook.

The post Joe Cunningham: A False Narrative Is Stoking Fears Over The New Joker Movie appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Joker-300x169 Joe Cunningham: A False Narrative Is Stoking Fears Over The New Joker Movie Narrative movie mental illness Media mass shooting Joker Guns Front Page Stories Featured Story Culture Colorado Aurora Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Dis-robed: Is it time for the Supreme Court to take up toplessness?

Westlake Legal Group KiaSinclair Dis-robed: Is it time for the Supreme Court to take up toplessness? topless The Blog Supreme Court free the nipple Fort Collins Colorado 10th circuit

No, not for themselves, although not not for themselves either. A decision by Fort Collins, Colorado not to challenge a 2-1 10th Circuit ruling that struck down ordinances against topless women in their city has the impact of striking down similar statutes across six states. It might be late in the season, but the Free the Nipple movement can celebrate the win in their preferred style in Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming as well as the Rocky Mountain state:

Fort Collins, Colorado, decided not to continue its challenge to a federal court’s decision that a ban on going topless in the city amounts to unconstitutional discrimination, NBC News reported.

The city had argued that a repeal of the ban would lead to women “parading in front of elementary schools or swimming topless in the public pool,” according to the report.

The city decided not to appeal the decision this month after spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on the legal battle already, NBC reported.

The decision to not move forward with the appeal effectively legalizes the practice in the six states covered by the 10th Circuit court, according to the report.

Jazz covered the 10th Circuit’s ruling back in February, but it’s worth revisiting again after Fort Collins’ surrender. The court ruled that the ordinance barring female toplessness had no other rational basis than gender discrimination. The city had argued that exposed female breasts had an “inherently sexual nature,” which raised “myriad concerns” about public order if unrestricted toplessness was adopted. As the ruling notes, the city outlined a few of those concerns:

The officials testified that female toplessness could disrupt public order, lead to distracted driving, and endanger children. Citing these concerns, the City claims that prohibiting only female toplessness serves to protect children from public nudity, to maintain public order, and to promote traffic safety.

Needless to say, the traffic safety argument didn’t carry the day. Instead, the court panel blamed “negative stereotypes” about the female breast for gender discrimination:

We’re left, as the district court was, to suspect that the City’s professed interest in protecting children derives not from any morphological differences between men’s and women’s breasts but from negative stereotypes depicting women’s breasts, but not men’s breasts, as sex objects.

One can endlessly debate whether the sexual allure of women’s breasts are a negative, let alone a “stereotype” in the sense that it falsely portrays reality. The vast experience of human sexuality seems to clearly indicate that women’s breasts contribute to their sexual allure far more than men’s breasts to to theirs. In his dissent, Judge Harris Hartz notes that gender-discrimination laws and precedents traditionally apply where there are no rational differences between the sexes. The Fort Collins ordinance does not irrationally discriminate, Hartz wrote, but follows a long line of public-indecency laws that necessarily deal with rational physical differences between the sexes:

It is part of a long tradition of laws prohibiting public indecency—the public display of portions of the anatomy that are perceived as particularly erotic or serve an excretory function. These laws may be justified as reducing or preventing antisocial behavior caused by indecent exposure: offensive behavior ranging from assault to corruption of youth to simply distraction from productive activity. The Ordinance does not discriminate against women on the basis of any overbroad generalization about their perceived “talents, capacities, or preferences.” To the extent it distinguishes between the sexes, it is based on inherent biological, morphological differences between them. Those differences are not stereotypes. They are not statistical differences, they are not matters of degree. They are differences in anatomical structure that reflect the unique biological roles played by males and females. (Plaintiffs’ “evidence” that the breasts of men and women are essentially identical cannot be taken seriously.) We are not dealing here with a “simplistic, outdated assumption that gender could be used as a proxy for other, more germane bases of classification.” Mississippi University for Women, 458 U.S. at 726 (internal quotation marks omitted).

And, to go back to first principles in equal-protection jurisprudence, there is nothing inherently invidious to an adult of either gender in declaring that an inherent biological, morphological feature of his or her body is erotic. That view would be inconsistent with the fundamental role of sexual attraction in our most revered social institution—marriage; to believe that a spouse is sexually attractive is not to demean the spouse. I do not think the Supreme Court has embraced the view that it is.

In this light, it is apparent that the rationales supporting heightened scrutiny of gender discrimination have no purchase in the context of indecency laws based on inherent biological, morphological differences between the sexes.

I’m torn between libertarianism, subsidiarity, and conservatism on this point but end up agreeing with Hartz. It might well be that Fort Collins’ ideas on public indecency are outmoded and that their concerns are overblown, but that’s an issue for Fort Collins voters, not the federal courts. There are natural and significant differences between men and women that require specific attention in public indecency laws, which means there is a rational and essentially non-discriminatory reason for drawing those distinctions. Federal courts should have stopped when the obvious rational basis for this was made clear. (And to be honest, I’d prefer that men cover up rather than free their nipples in public, too, but I don’t live in Fort Collins.) The role of the federal judiciary is to judge cases in light of the Constitution and federal law, not to strike down laws they think are foolish. That’s the job of legislatures and voters.

Back in February, it looked likely that Fort Collins would appeal this to the Supreme Court. Now that they’re out of the action, will one of the states impacted by their forfeit take up the challenge instead? As NBC News notes, it’s ripe for cert, and thanks to another similar case, the court might end up taking both at the same time regardless:

Most other courts have rejected equal-protection challenges to bans on female toplessness, as the Tenth Circuit acknowledged in its February ruling, saying “ours is the minority viewpoint.”

But the ruling said the trend has been toward “requiring more⁠— not less— judicial scrutiny when asserted physical differences are raised to justify gender-based discrimination.”

A challenge to a local topless ban in New Hampshire is now pending before the US Supreme Court, brought by three women who appeared topless at a lakeside beach. The state supreme court acknowledged that the law treats men and women differently. But it said public exposure of the female breast “almost invariably conveys sexual overtones.”

The U.S. Supreme Court will announce later this year whether it will hear the case.

We now have the kind of split that usually merits a grant of cert by the Supreme Court. If they do take this up, it will almost certainly be one of the most-watched cases on the docket this year. Oh come on, you know what I mean.

The post Dis-robed: Is it time for the Supreme Court to take up toplessness? appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group KiaSinclair-300x159 Dis-robed: Is it time for the Supreme Court to take up toplessness? topless The Blog Supreme Court free the nipple Fort Collins Colorado 10th circuit   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

A 24-Year-Old with a Failing 2nd Heart Makes a Wish List, and Maybe You Can Help

Westlake Legal Group jennifer-ortiz-heart-transplant-SCREENSHOT-620x350 A 24-Year-Old with a Failing 2nd Heart Makes a Wish List, and Maybe You Can Help Uncategorized kdvr jennifer ortiz healthcare Front Page Stories Fox 31 Featured Story Denver Culture Conservatives Colorado Allow Media Exception

[Screenshot from KVDR, https://kdvr.com/2019/09/10/local-24-year-old-woman-in-heart-failure-asking-for-help-with-her-bucket-list/]

 

24-year-old Jennifer Ortiz, of Commerce City, Colorado, has started a GoFundMe page.

The reason? Her bucket list.

It’s one she shouldn’t — at such a young age — have to make.

But after being denied a third heart transplant — and with only a biventricular assist device keeping her alive — she doesn’t know how much longer she’ll have.

Her father, Danny, explained to Denver’s Fox 31:

“[BiVAD’s are] not designed to be a total artificial heart.”


Jennifer underwent her first transplant at 12 years old, following the diagnosis of an enlarged heart initially manifested by a prolonged cough.

In 2017, she received a 2nd heart, which is now failing.

As reported by Fox News, on September 5th, she was told she was being placed on palliative care.

Now she’s looking to do what she can with the time she has left.

“We’ve got to condense a lifetime into as much time as we have,” Danny explained.

A few of Jennifer’s hopes? To see the Big Apple, attend a Cowboys game, see The Ellen DeGeneres Show live, meet the Jonas Brothers, and enjoy a Broadway musical.

So why am I writing all this? Because of Jennifer, and because of you. After all — despite some claims to the contrary, conservatives have generous hearts. If you have a way of helping — whatever that might be — now you know of one more person in a world of need. Maybe you’ll assist her with your prayers. Or maybe you work for Ellen.

If you’d like to visit her GoFundMe — for which, of course, I cannot vouch — you can do so here.

On the page, Jennifer writes:

“If any of you have travelled to the destination I am going to, I’d love to get some ideas of what to do and see while I am there!”

Perhaps you have advice.

Politics and culture mean nothing without life; here’s to hoping Jennifer Ortiz has much more of it to live.

And in that gifted loan of time, may she — and may we all — find something wonderful.

Including the wonder of helping others.

-ALEX

 

See 3 more pieces from me:

This Video Of Parents In The Armed Forces Surprising Their Little Children Will Leave You In Tears

HILARIOUS: A Little Boy Calls 911 Because He’s Hungry. What Happens Next Will Be Your Favorite Story This Week

Louisiana Woman Tries To Beat Boyfriend To Death With His Prosthetic Leg After He Says He Wants To Date Someone Else

Find all my RedState work here.

And please follow Alex Parker on Twitter and Facebook.

Thank you for reading! Please sound off in the Comments section below. 

If you have an iPhone and want to comment, select the box with the upward arrow at the bottom of your screen; swipe left and choose “Request Desktop Site.” If it fails to automatically refresh, manually reload the page. Scroll down to the red horizontal bar that says “Show Comments.

The post A 24-Year-Old with a Failing 2nd Heart Makes a Wish List, and Maybe You Can Help appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group jennifer-ortiz-heart-transplant-SCREENSHOT-300x169 A 24-Year-Old with a Failing 2nd Heart Makes a Wish List, and Maybe You Can Help Uncategorized kdvr jennifer ortiz healthcare Front Page Stories Fox 31 Featured Story Denver Culture Conservatives Colorado Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Colorado School Bans Teen After Going to a Shooting Range With Mother, Even After Police Clear Him

Westlake Legal Group man-886601_1280-620x388 Colorado School Bans Teen After Going to a Shooting Range With Mother, Even After Police Clear Him threat assessment Politics high school Guns gun rights gun control Front Page Stories Featured Story Colorado Allow Media Exception Academia

I’ve constantly pushed education about firearms over blind fear because blind fear tends to make people make stupid decisions. Case in point, Loveland High School in Loveland, Colorado is currently proving me correct.

According to the Second Amendment Group “Rally for Our Rights,” Justine Myers picked up her 16-year-old son Nate early from school in order to take him to go target shooting as a way to bond with her son.

Nat had apparently posted a couple of videos from his cell phone to social media displaying the guns he was going to be shooting with, and his mother instructing him while he fired them at the range.

After the two had come home from the range, police arrived at their door, having gotten reports that Nate was a potential threat due to his posting firearms online.

After viewing the videos, police determined that the Myers family had done nothing illegal, were using legally owned firearms, and that Nate was not a threat to anyone. As “Rally for Our Rights” states, that should have been the end of it, but things only went downhill from there.

On Wednesday morning, Myers woke up to a voicemail from her son’s high school saying that he would not be allowed to return to school as he had been deemed a threat:

The voicemail informed Justine that a report had come in claiming Nate was a threat to the school and he was not allowed to return until further notice. The report presumably came through Safe 2 Tell.  There are reports that a school wide email was also sent to parents about the “threat”.   Justine immediately contacted the school assuming she could easily clear things up, especially since the police had already assessed the situation and realized no one had done anything wrong or made any threats.  She was wrong.  The school not only refused to provide her with more information about the “threat”, but they refused to provide Nate with schoolwork so he doesn’t get behind.

She was told that she could attend a “threat assessment hearing” on Thursday morning with seven school officials in attendance so that she can “make their case” for her son’s innocence.

Legal experts told “Rally for Our Rights” that the school is currently within legal bounds to do this, and while I can respect legality, I can’t respect misplaced panic.

The police cleared Nate of being a threat and everything the Myers family was doing was completely legal. Loveland high is essentially punishing the Myers family for the act of doing nothing wrong based on the false need to feel overly cautious. Erring on the side of caution is one thing, but the cultural assumption that people who enjoy shooting firearms are possible threats that should be taken seriously is going to make everyone scared of a majority of America.

What bothers me most is that this seems to me like more than just precaution.

The school should be good with simply calling the police and asking for a report about what happened. Upon the police telling them that there is nothing to worry about, the case should have been done. That it wasn’t says there’s more here than just school officials wanting to make sure everything is fine.

It comes off more as a message, or at least, that’s what the optics seem like. It’s clear that a mother and son weren’t doing anything to be worried about, and even the police agree. Maintaining that there needs to be a “threat assessment” after that would definitely put other parents of the mind that any mention of firearms or guns in public is a bad idea.

Silence about practicing and standing up for your Second Amendment right becomes a risky venture.

Maybe that’s the intent of the school officials, or maybe it’s not, but that’s the effect it’s going to have regardless.

The post Colorado School Bans Teen After Going to a Shooting Range With Mother, Even After Police Clear Him appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group man-886601_1280-300x188 Colorado School Bans Teen After Going to a Shooting Range With Mother, Even After Police Clear Him threat assessment Politics high school Guns gun rights gun control Front Page Stories Featured Story Colorado Allow Media Exception Academia   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Identity politics meltdown: Lesbians Against Buttigieg?

Westlake Legal Group hillary-point Identity politics meltdown: Lesbians Against Buttigieg? The Blog Pete Buttigieg Lesbian Identity politics Hillary Clinton Colorado 2020 Elections 2016 Election

Democrats plan to go all-in on identity politics in 2020 — as soon as they can establish their hierarchy of identities. Politico reports today that Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who has made his sexual orientation a key selling point in his campaign to become the first openly gay president, might ironically find himself the victim of identity politics. Lesbians, it turns out, are less interested in sexual orientation than in gender when it comes to electoral justice next year:

Campbell Spencer, a lesbian and political consultant, moved to Washington in the 1990s to work in LGBTQ advocacy. She wooed gay and lesbian voters for Al Gore, worked a stint in the Obama White House and now serves on the board of the LGBTQ Victory Fund, which this year issued its first-ever endorsement of a presidential candidate: Pete Buttigieg.

But Spencer herself will not be voting for Buttigieg.

“Mayor Pete, he’s a trailblazer,” Spencer said in an interview. “But I’m one of these women who thinks we are way overdue for having a woman in the White House. That’s a lens through which I’m going to filter my decision.”

Buttigieg, the openly gay mayor of South Bend, Ind., has drawn notable support from gay voters and donors for his presidential bid. But interviews with a dozen prominent Democrats in the LGBTQ community spotlight a remarkable collision of goals and ideals in the community of lesbian political activists this year. As the 2020 field slowly winnows, people are divided over which glass ceiling to break first.

Call it a Kanye West moment for identity groups in this cycle. Yo Pete, I’m really happy for you, Im’a let you finish, but HILLARY …

“It feels like a slap in the face to just go directly to the white gay guy, when for decades you’ve been trying to elect a woman and it didn’t happen last time,” said one lesbian Democrat who works in national politics. “If Pete Buttigieg is elected it won’t feel like a vindication of Hillary Clinton. If a woman is elected, it will.”

Er … why would this election be a “vindication of Hillary Clinton” in any form? Even if Elizabeth Warren won the nomination and the general election, that wouldn’t be a “vindication” of Clinton. Hillary had her own chance to win an election, a chance handed to her by the DNC on a silver platter, and she blew it. And one of the ways in which Hillary blew it was by making the election about identity politics and her own entitlement when voters wanted the election to be about themselves.

In fact, most voters still labor under the delusion that primaries are all about finding the best person to elect, in this case into the most powerful position in the country, rather than a nominee for Symbol of the Quadrennium. Even among Democratic voters, identity politics is not terribly attractive, as Monmouth discovered earlier this year:

Race and gender do not seem to be important factors for Democratic voters when considering who the party should choose to run against Trump. Fully 87% say the race of the nominee does not matter. Just 5% say it would be better for Democrats to nominate a person of color, which is offset by 6% who say it would actually be better for the party to nominate a white candidate. Similarly, 77% say the gender of the nominee does not matter. Just 7% say it would be better for Democrats to nominate a woman, while slightly more (12%) say it would actually be better for the party to nominate a man.

And yet, Democratic leadership and activists remain obsessed with identity politics. That nearly touched off a civil war earlier this year when the Frosh Squad accused Nancy Pelosi and other party leaders for being racist in criticizing them, and this Politico story suggests that the Identity Wars may yet start up again. If Democrats are determined to appeal to the 7% at the expense of the 87%, they’ll lose in 2020 no matter who they nominate. Donald Trump may have many faults, but he knows how to make elections about empowering voters rather than entitling politicians.

It’s not just on the national level, either. Six of the Democrats running for the Senate nomination in Colorado sent a letter to the DSCC excoriating the decision to recruit and endorse John Hickenlooper to run against Cory Gardner. How dare they pass over women in an attempt to win an election!

Six of the women vying for the Democratic nomination in Colorado’s 2020 U.S. Senate race sent a letter Monday to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and its leadership urging them to reconsider their early endorsement of John Hickenlooper in the race.

“We are writing today to urge the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee to reconsider its early endorsement of former Governor John Hickenlooper. All of us, like many women in Colorado and across the country, have seen well-qualified women passed over for male candidates in the workplace time and again,” wrote Sen. Angela Williams, Alice Madden, Diana Bray, Stephany Rose Spaulding, Lorena Garcia and Michelle Ferrigno Warren to the DSCC, Sen. Chuck Schumer and Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto.

They sent the letter on Monday, which was Women’s Equality Day 2019 in the U.S.

 

The post Identity politics meltdown: Lesbians Against Buttigieg? appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group hillary-point-300x173 Identity politics meltdown: Lesbians Against Buttigieg? The Blog Pete Buttigieg Lesbian Identity politics Hillary Clinton Colorado 2020 Elections 2016 Election   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Electoral College Members Can Defy Voters’ Wishes, Court Rules

Westlake Legal Group 22faithless-promo2-facebookJumbo Electoral College Members Can Defy Voters’ Wishes, Court Rules United States Politics and Government Presidential Election of 2016 electoral college Decisions and Verdicts Constitution (US) Colorado

In a ruling that kicks at the foundation of how America chooses presidents, a federal appeals court on Tuesday said members of the Electoral College, who cast the actual votes for president, may choose whomever they please regardless of a state’s popular vote.

The ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Denver said Colorado was out of bounds in 2016 when it canceled the vote of a so-called faithless elector named Michael Baca. Mr. Baca, a Democrat, wrote in the name of John Kasich, a Republican who was Ohio’s governor at the time, even though Hillary Clinton carried Colorado, earning its nine electoral votes. The secretary of state replaced Mr. Baca with another elector who then voted for Mrs. Clinton.

“The text of the Constitution makes clear that states do not have the constitutional authority to interfere with presidential electors who exercise their constitutional right to vote for the president and vice president candidates of their choice,” the court majority wrote in a split ruling by a three-judge panel.

[Sign up for our politics newsletter and join the conversation around the 2020 presidential race.]

Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard law professor who founded the group that brought the case, Equal Citizens, said it was the first time a federal appeals court had ruled on whether electors could be bound in how they vote. Many states, including Colorado, have laws requiring electors to pledge that they will support the winner of the popular vote. The Constitution is mute on the subject. The appeals court noted that a handful of faithless electors have broken pledges to vote with their state’s majority since the presidential election of 1796.

Equal Citizens wants the Supreme Court to review the issue before the 2020 election. Because of hyper-partisanship and demographic changes pushing the country into near evenly divided camps, Mr. Lessig said, soon there very likely will be a presidential election that yields a tie or near tie in the Electoral College. Then, many more electors other than Mr. Baca may seek to influence the results, producing chaos.

“Whatever side you’re on, whether you think it’s a good or bad idea for electors to have freedom, the question ought to be resolved before there is a constitutional crisis,” Mr. Lessig said.

Resistance to the role of the Electoral College — which the nation’s founders set up out of fear of too much democracy, and which benefited Southern slaveholding states at the time — has grown stronger among Democrats ever since the 2000 election, when Al Gore won the popular vote but lost in the Electoral College.

President Trump’s Electoral College victory, despite losing the popular vote by nearly three million, only intensified Democrats’ antipathy. (Mr. Trump won states with 306 electoral votes, and Mrs. Clinton 232. But the vote in the Electoral College was 304 to 227, with seven electors defecting, the most ever.)

Democratic candidates for president this year, including Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., and Senators Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, have called for the elimination of the Electoral College.

“Every vote matters, and the way we can make that happen is that we can have national voting, and that means get rid of the Electoral College,” Ms. Warren said while campaigning in March.

In addition, 15 states and the District of Columbia have passed laws to award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. The agreement would go into effect once states representing a majority of 270 electoral votes join the interstate agreement.

Colorado joined the group in March. Even still, its secretary of state, Jena Griswold, a Democrat, opposed the appeals court ruling this week. “This court decision takes power from Colorado voters and sets a dangerous precedent,” she said in a statement. “Our nation stands on the principle of one person, one vote.”

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Federal Appeals Court Torpedoes the National Popular Vote Movement Thanks to a Hillary Clinton Elector

Westlake Legal Group electoral-college-j-620x317 Federal Appeals Court Torpedoes the National Popular Vote Movement Thanks to a Hillary Clinton Elector wayne williams tenth circuit Secretary of State Politics national popular vote Micheal Baca jena griswold Front Page Stories Featured Story electoral college elections democrats Courts Colorado Allow Media Exception

Quill ballpoint pens sit ready for Elector College electors, Monday, Dec. 19, 2016, in Olympia, Wash. Members of Washington state’s Electoral College met at noon Monday in the Capitol to complete the constitutional formality. (AP Photo/Elaine Thompson)

The genius of our Founding Fathers was in realizing that in order for a collection of sovereign states to agree to delegate some of the sovereignty to a federal government, even the smallest of states had to be guaranteed that their rights would not be trammeled and that the resulting nation would be a true republic and not merely perpetual rule by the largest states. The creation of a Senate elected by the state legislatures was one such check. The requirement of a super-majority of both Congress and of the States to amend the constitution was another. The masterpiece was the decision to have the president elected by an Electoral College ensuring that the president had widespread support throughout the country rather than being a regional candidate put in office by running up a large margin of victory in a small number of large states.

After George Bush defeated Al Gore while narrowly losing the popular vote, the progressive forces who would like nothing more than to destroy the republican character of the United States, came up with the idea of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). The idea being that if a large number of states made an agreement among themselves to cast their electoral votes for the candidate who won the popular vote, regardless of how many votes that candidate received in state elections, that the Electoral College could essentially be corrupted from its true purpose and made to serve the ends of a purely democratic election process, something, by the way, that the Founders abhorred.

Since its inception in 2007, 16 states controlling 196 electoral votes have signed on.

There are a lot of reasons to doubt that this is legal. The Constitution expressly forbids interstate compacts. Some law professors have argued that this is really THAT kind of compact but a TOTALLY DIFFERENT kind of compact which would pass constitutional muster. (If you can find an idea so bizarre that you can’t get an Ivy League law professor to argue in favor of it, please let me know. Its sort of like the old joke about why scientists have started using lawyers rather than rats in lab experiments.) And, of course, when you cast a vote for president you are actually casting a vote for an elector who is generally understood to be able to vote how they wish. Hence the hunt for “faithless electors” in 2000 and 2016, that is, electors who would vote for the Democrat rather than the person they were pledged to support.

What is so offensive about this is that it is a typically dishonest move by the left to find and end run around part of the Constitution they don’t like. There is a mechanism for getting rid of the Electoral College. It’s called a “constitutional amendment.” But to get there they would actually have to convince a large majority of Congress and of Americans that this makes sense when it really doesn’t. So they’ve come up with this cute little idea knowing that they only have to be clever enough to convince a handful of like-minded federal judges to go along with the lies and with the fiction and they have effectively changed the Constitution without anyone being able to object.

Regardless of the legality, the practicality suffered a significant blow yesterday when an appeals court ruled that an elector cannot be bound by a state to vote any particular way.

This is the set up.

The ballot was pre-filled with Hillary Clinton’s name, but Micheal Baca didn’t want to vote for Hillary Clinton.

The 24-year-old presidential elector in Colorado had a different plan. Weeks earlier, following Donald Trump’s victory in the general election, Baca and a fellow elector began a movement they called “Hamilton Electors,” a long-shot bid to stop Trump from winning the presidency. The idea was to convince enough members of the electoral college — the body of 538 members who vote for president — to instead cast ballots for Republicans such as former Ohio Gov. John Kasich, depriving Trump of just enough electoral votes required to become president.

Everyone told Baca it was a long shot — but he didn’t think so. All they needed was 37 out of 306 Republican electors to vote for a candidate other than Trump, and they also sought out Democrats to vote for moderate Republicans. Baca found two takers in Colorado: Polly Baca (no relation) and Robert Nemanich.

Just an observation. What did he hope to accomplish? The best he could do would be to have had the election thrown into the House of Representatives which had a Republican majority, but virtue signaling is nothing if not a spectator sport.

The Colorado Secretary of State wasn’t amused.

Then-Secretary of State Wayne Williams refused to count the vote and removed Baca as an elector. He replaced him with another elector who voted for Clinton.

Just think about how little an actual election made if the Secretary of State can summarily remove an elected official for not doing his bidding and replace him with a compliant, stump-broke susbstitute, because there is nothing really different about an elector and any other elected official.

Baca, not being a total twit, sued. Today the Tenth Circuit ruled.

Now, for apparently the first time, a federal appeals court has upheld the right of “faithless electors” to vote with their conscience — a ruling that “throws into question” states’ winner-take-all election systems that bind electors to vote for the state’s popular vote winner, attorneys on Baca’s case said. In a 125-page split opinion Tuesday, a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled that Colorado’s decision to nullify Baca’s vote and remove him as an elector was unconstitutional.

“The text of the Constitution makes clear that states do not have the constitutional authority to interfere with presidential electors who exercise their constitutional right to vote for the President and Vice President candidates of their choice,” U.S. Circuit Judge Carolyn B. McHugh, an Obama appointee, wrote in the majority opinion, joined by Jerome A. Holmes, a George W. Bush appointee. Mary Beck Briscoe, a Clinton appointee, dissented, arguing the case was moot because no damages could be awarded.

Read the whole opinion.

The impact on the NPVIC nonsense is pretty clear. State parties choose the slate of electors to vote for president. The NPVIC is predicated on the (erroneous) notion that state governments can bind these officials in how they vote. Now its pretty obvious that they can’t. Now that this truly bad idea is pretty much dead, the left is flogging the idea that this means the end of our system of government.

“This court decision takes power from Colorado voters and sets a dangerous precedent,” said Jena Griswold, Colorado’s secretary of state. “Our nation stands on the principle of one person, one vote. We are reviewing this decision with our attorneys, and will vigorously protect Colorado voters.”

Actually, it returns to the voters of Colorado to vote for the candidate of their choice for president instead of having the voters of New York and California making that choice for them.

There may be a trip to the Supreme Court in the future. Even if Colorado doesn’t appeal (I don’t think they will because they know they’ll get their clock cleaned and that will finish the NPVIC for good), there is a conflicting decision from the Washington state supreme court ruling that electors are bound to vote in the way directed. The decision seems like lunacy but it is Washington and the Ninth Circuit so lunacy is sort of the way of life there.

This now seems to put the dream of ending the Electoral College back where it belongs, which is requiring a constitutional amendment. Good luck with that.

=========
=========
Like what you see? Then visit my story archive.

I’m on Facebook. Drop by and join the fun there.
=========
=========

The post Federal Appeals Court Torpedoes the National Popular Vote Movement Thanks to a Hillary Clinton Elector appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group electoral-college-j-300x153 Federal Appeals Court Torpedoes the National Popular Vote Movement Thanks to a Hillary Clinton Elector wayne williams tenth circuit Secretary of State Politics national popular vote Micheal Baca jena griswold Front Page Stories Featured Story electoral college elections democrats Courts Colorado Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Hickenlooper a go for Senate bid

Westlake Legal Group Hickenlooper Hickenlooper a go for Senate bid The Blog John Hickenlooper Cory Gardner Colorado 2020 Senate

The teasing is apparently over for former Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper. Even before his presidential bid crashed and burned in spectacular fashion, Democrats had been pleading with him to drop out and take a run at Cory Gardner’s Senate seat. Apparently, Hickenlooper is taking the Vox populi, vox Dei approach because he announced this morning that he will be doing precisely that. (Associated Press)

Former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper said Thursday that he will run for the U.S. Senate, becoming the immediate front-runner in a crowded Democratic field vying for the right to challenge Republican incumbent Cory Gardner.

He made his announcement via a video message in which he blasted Washington lawmakers over soaring prescription drug prices, the failure to act on climate change and the use of public lands by developers.

“I know changing Washington is hard, but I want to give it a shot,” he says. “I’m not done fighting for the people of Colorado.”

There’s little question that Gardner is viewed as being vulnerable, but Colorado is so closely divided in political terms that any statewide office is generally seen as being up for grabs. If the Democrats have any hopes at all of taking back the Senate next year, however, Colorado is probably a must-win state for them. Hickenlooper is a proven performer, at least, having won the Governorship twice.

But that doesn’t mean this is a done deal. As we discussed here a couple of weeks ago when these rumors first started swirling, Hickenlooper doesn’t have a clear glide path to the Democratic nomination. There’s already a crowded primary field shaping up, including several very popular Democrats. And none of them have any intention of simply stepping aside to make the former Governor’s life easy.

What impact will this have on the Democrats’ presidential nomination race? Well, it’s tough to say who will be the beneficiary that inherits the five people who might have been considering voting for Hickenlooper, but today’s news isn’t likely to move the polls in any measurable fashion. We’re going to need a lot more people to drop out before we start seeing any real consolidation. In the meantime, Colorado just got a lot more interesting in terms of what happens next November.

The post Hickenlooper a go for Senate bid appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group Hickenlooper-300x159 Hickenlooper a go for Senate bid The Blog John Hickenlooper Cory Gardner Colorado 2020 Senate   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com